Who's "Bob Dylan?"
- Thread starter Cheesy1
- Start date
- Status
No, I'm talking from first-hand experience. I have 5 cousins under 20. 2 of them will only listen to Jonas Brothers-esque kind of crap, yes, but the other 3 are well aware of classic rock and listen to a lot of Floyd, Zepellin, Beatles. One of these three is also a huge Beatles fan, and he's the one I like and interact with the least.
The other day one of these cousins and a bunch of his friends had a party at my grandparents' house, and I donated my laptop for music. I played The Times They Are a-Changin', the album not just the song, and they complained after track 3 of my "old, boring music". This was after listening to all of Abbey Road, without complaints. One of them is 21, but the rest are 18 or 19.
And this is just a first-hand example I can think off the top of my head. Think about it, it's 2009 and we're still having a "Beatles Day" celebration on 09/09/09, with events planned worldwide and the sales of the re-mastered albums predicted to reach millions in the first week alone. Can you picture a hypothetic "Dylan Day" having that sort of impact today?
The other day one of these cousins and a bunch of his friends had a party at my grandparents' house, and I donated my laptop for music. I played The Times They Are a-Changin', the album not just the song, and they complained after track 3 of my "old, boring music". This was after listening to all of Abbey Road, without complaints. One of them is 21, but the rest are 18 or 19.
And this is just a first-hand example I can think off the top of my head. Think about it, it's 2009 and we're still having a "Beatles Day" celebration on 09/09/09, with events planned worldwide and the sales of the re-mastered albums predicted to reach millions in the first week alone. Can you picture a hypothetic "Dylan Day" having that sort of impact today?
I said it was jsut one example, and the story was about a whole bunch of his under 20 friends, not just my cousin. How can I be biased with a bunch of teenagers I was forced to spend time with cause my grandfather couldn't bother to look after them even though he's the one that volunteered his house?
I could pull out more examples of people that became Beatles fans well before their 20s, but I think I've made my point. Dylan was largely an American phenomena, whereas The Beatles reached worldwide impact to a much greater extent.
I could pull out more examples of people that became Beatles fans well before their 20s, but I think I've made my point. Dylan was largely an American phenomena, whereas The Beatles reached worldwide impact to a much greater extent.
Bob Dylan's did a lot of work in getting attention to the many social causes going on in the 60s.Calleja said:
Bob Dylan did a lot more for social progress with who he was and what he played than the beatles ever did.
just because your cousins don't know rock and roll history doesn't mean Bob Dylan's largest contribution to society was being the guy who happened to teach the beatles how to get high on pot.
the beatles are a marketed commodity, a trademark, a corporation, and a brand name
bob dylan is a dude that made great music
bob dylan is a dude that made great music
Again, the merit of social progress is another subject entirely. I'm talking about sheer number of masses touched.Allen said:
The Beatles defined a whole movement, not just musically, but socially. The British Invasion, The Summer of Love, mop top, beatle boots, the music video, the modern pop formula, rock opera, the concept album... these are all Beatles contributions. I'm not saying one is "better" than the other, I'm just stating, factually, that, for good or bad, The Beatles had a much bigger impact.
And Dylan spurred that impact by catalyzing what would change the Beatles from a pop boy band to the pioneers they became... pot.
At the end of the day, in the Revised Book of Humankind's History, Dylan would be a much smaller chapter than The Beatles. Again, I'm not saying this is good, or bad, it just is. And Dylan gets the footnote credit of catalyzing a lot of what The Beatles influenced, which for better or worse, is more than what he influenced on his own.
The British Invasion was a musical thing. Not social. That was record companies being able to make a lot of money off of a large number of crappy bands by saying they were from Britain with a couple of good musicians being able to become deservedly famous.Calleja said:
Summer of Love was about the spirit of the times with many of the performers. Bob Dylan was a large part of that too. Beatles didn't have a monopoly.
Mop Top...the hairstyle? I doubt that they were the first people to put a bowl on their head and shave what hair isn't covered.
Sure, I'll give you the beatle boots thing. I guess having a style of footwear means you've made it.
You mean the music video which wasn't really a large, influential part of the scene until the 80s? They were one of the first, but during that era, it seems more like some tacked-on afterthought than being a large part of pop culture.
Rock Opera was a Who thing with Tommy. Opera has all the lines sung. The Beatles movies weren't operas. They were movies that had songs in them.
The modern pop formula...really. So you're saying Clapton didn't do anything by being one of the first extensive soloists? The Who's onstage showmanship didn't influence modern pop at all? The way Janis Joplin really belted it out didn't do anything? Bob Dylan's poetic lyrics, predating the Beatles's poetic lyrics by years, had absolutely no influence on modern pop?
Yeah, I guess the Beatles would have a large impact if you decided to give them credit for more things than they actually did and marginalize other influences on broad events in pop culture.
And honestly, saying that Bob Dylan is a small part of the history of humankind is saying Fuck You to the 60s and the social upheaval that went on during. He was a major influence on that social upheaval while the Beatles were still singing about how much they wanted to hold hands. He was a major influence on the social upheaval while the Beatles were singing about flying girls in skies populated by polyhedrons.
Yes, Allen, the modern pop formula. The now seemingly pre-made formula of verse 1, verse 2, chorus, verse, chorus, verse is a George Martin/Beatles creation. People saw The Beatles having songs on the top 5 spots of all the charts and decided to use that formula they noticed in their songs. And it became mainstream. It's literally the "formula" producers used and still use for pop music, and what's become standardized. Again, I'm not saying this is a GOOD thing, it just is.
Weren't YOU the one that linked to that college History of Rock Podcast that dedicated two whole episodes to the Beatles? One for the band, one for Sgt Pepper's? (I found the link in my history: http://www.saddleback.edu/PODCAST/MUS28/)
You're also largely ignoring a very true fact... Dylan is a largely American phenomenon. He had a great social impact in the States, yes, but not worldwide. My dad was a teenager in the 60s, he owns all Beatles records but wouldn't identify a Dylan song if you played it, unless it was one of his greatest hits. He knows of the man, sure, but Dylan made no impact outside the US like the Beatles did. The only American I'd say impacted the world on the same league as The Beatles did is Elvis.
Weren't YOU the one that linked to that college History of Rock Podcast that dedicated two whole episodes to the Beatles? One for the band, one for Sgt Pepper's? (I found the link in my history: http://www.saddleback.edu/PODCAST/MUS28/)
You're also largely ignoring a very true fact... Dylan is a largely American phenomenon. He had a great social impact in the States, yes, but not worldwide. My dad was a teenager in the 60s, he owns all Beatles records but wouldn't identify a Dylan song if you played it, unless it was one of his greatest hits. He knows of the man, sure, but Dylan made no impact outside the US like the Beatles did. The only American I'd say impacted the world on the same league as The Beatles did is Elvis.
I also should add that Dylan is, first and foremost, a lyricist. This is something the man himself insists on, that's he's a "storyteller" not a "songwriter". His music is barely more than a companion to his lyrics. He was an idol for his message, not his music. And Dylan's social message was largely and understandably American.
The Beatles were, first and foremost, musicians. Their appeal is much more universal because of this. Everyone in the world is susceptible to getting "Help!" stuck in their heads, whereas the message of a Dylan song is pretty much limited to Americans and people who understand America's social context at the song's time.
This is also why a Beatles cover seldom ever makes it outside of a CD compilation or a Julie Taymor movie, whereas Dylan has produced a body of work that blooms over and over again in other artists' hands.
The Beatles went at a song and perfected it in the studio, made the whole ensemble the message. Dylan, on the other hand, is known for banging them out with out-of-tune guitars, missed beats, flat notes, uneven tempos, etc. The music seems almost incidental to the lyrics in a recorded Dylan performance, hence it is very easy to pretty up or musically improve a Dylan tune. The Beatles perfected their songs; Dylan slammed them out with no adornments. Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, discussing the merit of socially sensitive lyrics vs harmony, composition and instrumentalization is not what I'm trying to make my point. It's the worldwide appeal that I'm trying to underline here.
The Beatles made a greater contribution to mankind (again, greater in size, not merit) than Bob Dylan simply because they were... ARE... global. Dylan WAS American. Past tense, because today his music is not what it was, Dylan is not played on the radio here in Mexico. The Beatles still are in regular rotation, and probably always will be.
Let me know when Dylan gets his own 09/09/09, 50 years after Dylanmania.
The Beatles were, first and foremost, musicians. Their appeal is much more universal because of this. Everyone in the world is susceptible to getting "Help!" stuck in their heads, whereas the message of a Dylan song is pretty much limited to Americans and people who understand America's social context at the song's time.
This is also why a Beatles cover seldom ever makes it outside of a CD compilation or a Julie Taymor movie, whereas Dylan has produced a body of work that blooms over and over again in other artists' hands.
The Beatles went at a song and perfected it in the studio, made the whole ensemble the message. Dylan, on the other hand, is known for banging them out with out-of-tune guitars, missed beats, flat notes, uneven tempos, etc. The music seems almost incidental to the lyrics in a recorded Dylan performance, hence it is very easy to pretty up or musically improve a Dylan tune. The Beatles perfected their songs; Dylan slammed them out with no adornments. Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, discussing the merit of socially sensitive lyrics vs harmony, composition and instrumentalization is not what I'm trying to make my point. It's the worldwide appeal that I'm trying to underline here.
The Beatles made a greater contribution to mankind (again, greater in size, not merit) than Bob Dylan simply because they were... ARE... global. Dylan WAS American. Past tense, because today his music is not what it was, Dylan is not played on the radio here in Mexico. The Beatles still are in regular rotation, and probably always will be.
Let me know when Dylan gets his own 09/09/09, 50 years after Dylanmania.
Beatles! Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles... Beatles? Beatles Beatles. Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles. Beatles Beatles. Beatles Beatles Beatles. Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles. BEATLES Beatles.
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles Beatles.
BEATLES
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles....
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles Beatles.
BEATLES
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles Beatles,
Beatles....
If you want to know about the Sixties, play the music of The Beatles.
~ Aaron Copland
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a decisive moment in the history of Western civilization.
~ Kenneth Tynan
~ Aaron Copland
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is a decisive moment in the history of Western civilization.
~ Kenneth Tynan
escushion said:
Bob Dylan.
That's all that needs to be said. :smug:
[spoiler:2ime56w1]fun fact: I have no personal investment in the bob Dylan vs. Beatles pissing contest. Until seeing this thread I assumed he was dead, like I do all celebrities who I don't hear about after a couple years.[/spoiler:2ime56w1]
Cool, so you're not disputing most of my arguments about your list. And you were referring only to the basic formula and ignoring all the other influences. All right. Formula has so many connotations when it comes to music, you know.
Yes, I linked to that podcast. I've listened to it several times. I can tell you about many of the big artists of the time. Are you trying to imply that I'm ignoring one of my sources or trying to make me look better by linking to one of my sources when talking about these artists?
Bob Dylan was a large political phenomenon. The US is a powerful country, less so now than it was in the 60s, but still powerful enough that the world felt US politics. Anyone influenced by the civil rights movement or the anti-war movement of the 60s has been influenced by Dylan. He was a factor for those social movements getting the kind of prominence they had. It's hard to say if Martin Luther King, Jr. would be the large personality that he is today if Dylan didn't help call attention to the political movement going on in the south and sang about the injustices going on down there.
A lot of the Beatles influence today is a musical influence. "Help!" is a much more catchy song than "Like a Rolling Stone".
If you want to remove all context, then I guess the Beatles are more impressive. Bob Dylan has to be looked at in context to understand what exactly he did. But you don't have to know who Bob Dylan is to have been touched by his impact.
Yes, I linked to that podcast. I've listened to it several times. I can tell you about many of the big artists of the time. Are you trying to imply that I'm ignoring one of my sources or trying to make me look better by linking to one of my sources when talking about these artists?
Bob Dylan was a large political phenomenon. The US is a powerful country, less so now than it was in the 60s, but still powerful enough that the world felt US politics. Anyone influenced by the civil rights movement or the anti-war movement of the 60s has been influenced by Dylan. He was a factor for those social movements getting the kind of prominence they had. It's hard to say if Martin Luther King, Jr. would be the large personality that he is today if Dylan didn't help call attention to the political movement going on in the south and sang about the injustices going on down there.
A lot of the Beatles influence today is a musical influence. "Help!" is a much more catchy song than "Like a Rolling Stone".
If you want to remove all context, then I guess the Beatles are more impressive. Bob Dylan has to be looked at in context to understand what exactly he did. But you don't have to know who Bob Dylan is to have been touched by his impact.
Bob Dylan is The Godfather
The Beatles are Titanic
The Beatles are Titanic
You're also ignoring my point about LASTING. See no further than the thread's OP and phil's crossed out fun fact to strengthen my "Dylan is not what he was" point.Allen said:
See the estimated sales for The Beatles: Rock Band to strengthen my "The Beatles are still around" point. When is Dylan getting his own videogame? His own Vegas Cirque Du Soleil show? His own mania? I'm not saying any of this things hold merit, but they exist, and they are great illustrations of how much The Beatles are still an intrinsic part of the world's psyche. Dylan isn't.
Also, I think you're turning this into a America vs The World debate. No matter how powerful the US is, it's still not the world. The civil rights and anti-war movements of the 60s are, guess what, still largely American. The world saw them from a distance, sure, like we saw 9/11... but at the end of the day we returned to our normal non-American lives, with our OWN civil rights and war issues. Dylan appealed to America, The Beatles appealed to the world.
And you don't have to know who the Beatles are to have been touched by their impact, either. Do I really need to expand this point, or can we agree on that?
-- less than a minute ago --
Cultural landmarks aren't decisive moments? If the world is noticeably different after an event, be it Pepper or 9/11, it's a decisive moment. Pepper changed the musical landscape, for better or for worse.phil said:
Having no real personal stake here:
I think the Beatles, as a *group*, with their own versions of their songs, will be played longer than Dylan.
On the other hand , I think *Dylan songs* will be played long after the Beatles.
It's no accident that most (well, many) Dylan songs are only popular - or even only well-known - in other artists' versions; especially abroad. His lyrics are sstrong, his message was clear and important, and his influence impossible to deny. However, he, himself, isn't exactly the greatest star, or a great singer, for that matter.
As Cabbageja said a bit earlier - the Beatles came out with finished songs; remaking them or covering them usually doesn't do much. Dylan wrote great songs, but he couldn't bring them himself. Heck, any guy who can play a bit of guitar and can improvise along with his singing can make Dylan's version of his own songs. It's the versions by the Byrds, Guns 'n Roses, the Carpenters, you name it, that are heavily known and conjure up the images of the 60s.
Said differently: I think Bob Dylan is probably the most influential songwriter in history. His songs have been remade, and will continue to be remade and covered, by dozens of artists, in many different ways, and their message is still important and will continue to be important.
Strictly as *artists*, the Beatles are better-known, which probably has more to do with the fact that many people don't know they're Dylan songs about half of his hits.
I think the Beatles, as a *group*, with their own versions of their songs, will be played longer than Dylan.
On the other hand , I think *Dylan songs* will be played long after the Beatles.
It's no accident that most (well, many) Dylan songs are only popular - or even only well-known - in other artists' versions; especially abroad. His lyrics are sstrong, his message was clear and important, and his influence impossible to deny. However, he, himself, isn't exactly the greatest star, or a great singer, for that matter.
As Cabbageja said a bit earlier - the Beatles came out with finished songs; remaking them or covering them usually doesn't do much. Dylan wrote great songs, but he couldn't bring them himself. Heck, any guy who can play a bit of guitar and can improvise along with his singing can make Dylan's version of his own songs. It's the versions by the Byrds, Guns 'n Roses, the Carpenters, you name it, that are heavily known and conjure up the images of the 60s.
Said differently: I think Bob Dylan is probably the most influential songwriter in history. His songs have been remade, and will continue to be remade and covered, by dozens of artists, in many different ways, and their message is still important and will continue to be important.
Strictly as *artists*, the Beatles are better-known, which probably has more to do with the fact that many people don't know they're Dylan songs about half of his hits.
B
Biardo
I just want to say, in the drunk state I'm in, that capeja is over simplefiyng things I'll try to say something more meaningful in the morning when I'm cappable of forming more coherent thoughts
Well, all I'm arguing is that he did things that are bigger in importance than get some assholes in a band stoned. If this ended up being an America vs. the World debate, I'm sure there are other people much more interested in arguing that.
I'm not going to convince you that Dylan did things that are of bigger importance than getting the beatles stoned and you're not going to convince me that he didn't.
Not like either of them really matter anyway
I'm not going to convince you that Dylan did things that are of bigger importance than getting the beatles stoned and you're not going to convince me that he didn't.
Not like either of them really matter anyway
ElJuski
Staff member
I think Dylan, to people who know about rock music, will put Dylan high up on that list. The Beatles are a cornerstone, this much is certain; but I think arguing that just because the Beatles and their pop songs got onto a video game is pretty naive and doesn't encapsulate the multiple different degrees that music can be appreciated and respected (that is, outside of mainstream play and attention). Because even five year olds can hear Target's rendition of "With A Little Help" on TV and be told it's the Beatles. So you could counter-argue that the only reason the Beatles get more play than Dylan these days is because of how easy and accessible their pop songs (and, economically, their catalog) is to be done and re-done. There's always some snappy new jingle that uses Beatles music--and there isn't a single Dylan song that got commercialized that has come to mind.
Music force, social force, economic force...it all adds up.
Music force, social force, economic force...it all adds up.
Calleja said:
I'm arguing that he had greater contributions to mankind than that. I don't know what you've been arguing. I guess that the Beatles are important?
Eh, whatever.
No.. cause what you're arguing is exactly my point. Not merit, not even music appreciation.... impact. Worldwide, sheer impact. Be it positive, negative, musical, social, homophobic, yellow, green, blue or banana.ElJuski said:
Dylan introduced the Beatles to pot. This radically altered the Beatles' mind set, and, subsequently, their music. This music moved on to become widespread, globally, and impact billions of people, across all generations. Be it with jingles, singles, albums or the fact that they were the first to put lyrics in an album's packaging is irrelevant to my point.
I mentioned that The Beatles got "their pop songs onto a video game" precisely as an illustration of how they have permeated general culture. It's not naive, it's fact. The musical "degrees" in which music can be "appreciated and respected" is entirely subjective and something I have no interest in arguing on. That was not my point.
And this is what I've been trying to say, but everyone seems to ignore me cause I'm an openly a Beatles fan. I don't care if you like them or not, respect them or not. Their impact is there. I am arguing fact, quantifiable fact, not subjective taste or musical merit or how "easy and accessible" music is or isn't. I am even going out of my way, in every single post, to stress out I am NOT arguing merit.
Greatest.Allen said:
great
??/gre?t/ [greyt] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun, plural greats, (especially collectively) great, interjection
Use greatest in a Sentence
–adjective
1. unusually or comparatively large in size or dimensions: A great fire destroyed nearly half the city.
2. large in number; numerous: Great hordes of tourists descend on Europe each summer.
3. unusual or considerable in degree, power, intensity, etc.: great pain.
I meant something akin to those 3 first meanings. You know, from the dictionary. Not merit, not musical subjectivity. Numbers. Size. There are, and always will be, more human beings, across the planet, who listen to The Beatles than Bob Dylan. Dylan spurred that with his "hey, this is pot, guys" action. It is his greatest, as in SIZE, contribution to mankind, in SIZE, because of the sheer number of people it got to, in SIZE.
IN SIZE.
Calleja: no offense, but you're saying that the most important thing Dylan did was influence one other band?
Come on. Than at least acknowledge that he has impacted and truly shaped many hundreds of artists. Dozens of them top hit artists. He's influenced the Beatles, yes, that's important. He's also influenced the Rolling Stones, the Chili Peppers, U2, heck, Michael Jackson. His songs and his style and everything together, he's influenced whole generations of artists; not just one group - even if those are the Beatles, it's just one of many he's had an influence on.
Come on. Than at least acknowledge that he has impacted and truly shaped many hundreds of artists. Dozens of them top hit artists. He's influenced the Beatles, yes, that's important. He's also influenced the Rolling Stones, the Chili Peppers, U2, heck, Michael Jackson. His songs and his style and everything together, he's influenced whole generations of artists; not just one group - even if those are the Beatles, it's just one of many he's had an influence on.
ElJuski
Staff member
It seems like you're starting to talk about impact, but then boggle it up yourself with merit. I don't understand why even introducing pot into the argument has anything to do with it, except it was one of many factors that widened their perspective and altered their music aesthetic. In which case, we'd be talking about merit again.
But yes, you are quite right: The Beatles, Micheal Jackson, Elvis, and maybe Madonna are quite possibly the only creatures that have become such a vast pop-cultural phenomenon to such a vast degree. Bigger than Jesus, to say in another way.
But yes, you are quite right: The Beatles, Micheal Jackson, Elvis, and maybe Madonna are quite possibly the only creatures that have become such a vast pop-cultural phenomenon to such a vast degree. Bigger than Jesus, to say in another way.
I will try to explain this like I would explain it to a 5 year old. If people misunderstand my point after this, I will simply ignore them, fair enough?
Imagine Bob Dylan and The Beatles as two balls. Balls that bounce, hit other things, as they roll. Bob Dylan was a great ball, yes, he hit a lot of people along his roll. mainly one type of people, americans, but he was still a very famous, idolized ball.
But he did something that hit a lot more people than his individual rolling... he introduced marijuana to another ball, The Beatles, and this caused them to roll faster and bounce much more than they did before, or Dylan ever did. This second ball bounced all over the world, to a much greater extent than the Dylan ball ever did, it may have hit people in a way you don't agree with, like on their gonads or because they were looking at something else the beatles ball bounced of off, but it is still visible and measurable that it hit more people.
Thanks to Dylan and pot.
The Dylan ball, probably without wanting or knowing, had one single action that affected more people than his own rolling ever did.
giving The Beatles a doobie.
Imagine Bob Dylan and The Beatles as two balls. Balls that bounce, hit other things, as they roll. Bob Dylan was a great ball, yes, he hit a lot of people along his roll. mainly one type of people, americans, but he was still a very famous, idolized ball.
But he did something that hit a lot more people than his individual rolling... he introduced marijuana to another ball, The Beatles, and this caused them to roll faster and bounce much more than they did before, or Dylan ever did. This second ball bounced all over the world, to a much greater extent than the Dylan ball ever did, it may have hit people in a way you don't agree with, like on their gonads or because they were looking at something else the beatles ball bounced of off, but it is still visible and measurable that it hit more people.
Thanks to Dylan and pot.
The Dylan ball, probably without wanting or knowing, had one single action that affected more people than his own rolling ever did.
giving The Beatles a doobie.
ElJuski
Staff member
I just think that the whole "Dylan/pot" thing is irrelevant to the discussion, especially when you (seemingly) agreed earlier that it's their poppy shit that is getting the constant mainstream attention, not the more developed music they evolved into later. I doubt even 50% of a certain group polled would know what a sitar was, or what songs are on the White Album. But people will be able to sing you "Help!" or whatever the latest TV jingle is.
But, I mean, I agree with you. The Beatles are a vast phenomena, only matched by a few other select celebrities who became royalty amongst musicians.
But, I mean, I agree with you. The Beatles are a vast phenomena, only matched by a few other select celebrities who became royalty amongst musicians.
No. I vehemently disagree. If the only musical catalog the Beatles had were their early stuff, they would have stayed a monster of the 60's, something akin to the Monkees or something. Their impact wasn't lasting until they changed things. 1967. Sgt Pepper's.
Ask anyone who was alive that summer. They remember Pepper. Everyone does.
Pepper is thanks to pot, to a larger degree than you think.
Pot was in the equation thanks to Dylan.
The most popular Beatle songs today according to statistics on Last.fm and Pandora... Come Together, Let it Be, Yesterday (guinness world record holder of most covers, ever) Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Strawberry Fields, Come Together, Hey Jude, Help!, Something.
Of these songs, only TWO are of the "poppy" era you mention. Help! and Yesterday. And Yesterday is what begun the not-poppy Beatles stuff, anyway, it was unheard of for a pop group to put out such a slow ballad as a single.
-- less than a minute ago --
Last.fm claims to have around 20 million active users each month. 20 million people, with their listening habits being made a statistic for every single track is a good study on the listening habits of regular joe world, agreed?
Fine then, let's take a look at Beatles listening habits:
There are TWO songs in that list from the poppy era (that are also poppy, not like the previously mentioned Yesterday). Help! and I Want To Hold Your Hand. The rest belong to the experimental, evolved Beatles.
All these people are listening to songs the Beatles created, in no small extent, thanks to the impact of marijuana in their lives. Dylan introduced this marijuana.
Is my point really not clear yet?
-- less than a minute ago --
(disregard the little hearts, those are there because I've marked those songs as favorites of mine)
Ask anyone who was alive that summer. They remember Pepper. Everyone does.
Pepper is thanks to pot, to a larger degree than you think.
Pot was in the equation thanks to Dylan.
The most popular Beatle songs today according to statistics on Last.fm and Pandora... Come Together, Let it Be, Yesterday (guinness world record holder of most covers, ever) Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, Strawberry Fields, Come Together, Hey Jude, Help!, Something.
Of these songs, only TWO are of the "poppy" era you mention. Help! and Yesterday. And Yesterday is what begun the not-poppy Beatles stuff, anyway, it was unheard of for a pop group to put out such a slow ballad as a single.
-- less than a minute ago --
Last.fm claims to have around 20 million active users each month. 20 million people, with their listening habits being made a statistic for every single track is a good study on the listening habits of regular joe world, agreed?
Fine then, let's take a look at Beatles listening habits:
There are TWO songs in that list from the poppy era (that are also poppy, not like the previously mentioned Yesterday). Help! and I Want To Hold Your Hand. The rest belong to the experimental, evolved Beatles.
All these people are listening to songs the Beatles created, in no small extent, thanks to the impact of marijuana in their lives. Dylan introduced this marijuana.
Is my point really not clear yet?
-- less than a minute ago --
(disregard the little hearts, those are there because I've marked those songs as favorites of mine)
- Status